`571-272-7822
`
`Paper 9
`Entered: May 4, 2016
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`BATTERY-BIZ, INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`COMARCO WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)1
`____________
`
`
`Before LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Denying Patent Owner’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice
`Admission of Mr. Charles Quinn
`37 C.F.R. § 42.10
`
`Patent Owner, Comarco Wireless Technologies, Inc., filed a motion
`for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Charles Quinn. Paper 6.2 Patent Owner
`also filed a declaration from Mr. Quinn in support of its motion. Paper 7. In
`
`
`1 We use this caption in this paper to indicate that this Order applies to, and
`is entered in, both cases. The parties are not authorized to use this caption.
`2 Papers filed thus far in IPR2016-00630 and IPR2016-00632 have identical
`paper numbers.
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)
`
`addition, Patent Owner filed a request for authorization to file a motion for
`pro hac vice admission. Paper 8. Petitioner, Battery-Biz, Inc., has not
`opposed Patent Owner’s motion.
`Having reviewed the motion and the declaration of Mr. Quinn, we
`deny Patent Owner’s motion without prejudice. As stated in the Notice of
`Filing Date Accorded to Petition entered in these proceedings, pro hac vice
`motions shall be filed in accordance with the requirements set forth in
`Unified Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB
`Oct. 15, 2013) (Paper 7), which is available on the PTAB website under
`“Representative Orders, Decisions, and Notices.” Paper 3, 2. In particular,
`a motion for pro hac vice admission must be accompanied by an affidavit or
`declaration of the individual seeking to appear attesting to several things,
`including that the individual will be subject to the USPTO Rules of
`Professional Conduct set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. and
`disciplinary jurisdiction under 37 C.F.R. § 11.19(a). Unified Patents, Case
`IPR2013-00639, slip op. at 3. In 2013, the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct replaced the USPTO Code of Professional Responsibility,
`previously set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. Id. at 2.
`In these proceedings, Patent Owner submitted a declaration from
`Mr. Quinn stating that he agrees to be subject to the USPTO Code of
`Professional Responsibility set forth in 37 C.F.R. §§ 10.20 et seq. As
`explained in Unified Patents, a declaration from an individual seeking pro
`hac vice admission should instead refer to the USPTO Rules of Professional
`Conduct, 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. Accordingly, Patent Owner is
`authorized to file a revised motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Quinn,
`accompanied by a declaration in which he states he will be subject to the
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)
`
`USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct, 37 C.F.R. §§ 11.101 et seq. The
`declaration should be filed as a Patent Owner exhibit rather than a paper, and
`the revised motion should refer to the declaration by exhibit number. Patent
`Owner also should confer with Petitioner and indicate in the revised motion
`whether Petitioner plans to oppose the motion.
`We also note that the Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition in
`these proceedings authorized the parties to file motions for pro hac vice
`admission under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c). Therefore, it is unnecessary for either
`party to request authorization to file a motion for pro hac vice admission.
`Moreover, the proper procedure for requesting authorization to file a motion
`(when authorization is required) is to send an email to the Board at the
`address at the top of the first page of this order, requesting a conference call
`with the Board to obtain authorization to file a motion.
`
`ORDER
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s motion for pro hac vice admission of
`Charles Quinn is denied without prejudice;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is authorized to file a
`revised motion for pro hac vice admission of Mr. Quinn, accompanied by a
`revised declaration from Mr. Quinn attesting to the items set forth in Unified
`Patents, Inc. v. Parallel Iron, LLC, Case IPR2013-00639 (PTAB Oct. 15,
`2013) (Paper 7);
`FURTHER ORDERED that the revised motion should indicate
`whether Petitioner plans to oppose the motion;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Quinn’s revised declaration should
`be filed as an exhibit;
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2016-00630 (Patent 7,863,770 B2)
`Case IPR2016-00632 (Patent 7,460,381 B2)
`
`FURTHER ORDERED that a revised motion for pro hac vice and a
`revised declaration should be filed no later than May 11, 2016; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that any opposition by Petitioner must be
`filed no later than one week after the filing date of Patent Owner’s revised
`motion.
`
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`David A. Dillard
`Sami I. Schilly
`LEWIS ROCA ROTHBERGER CHRISTIE, LLP
`ddillard@lrrc.com
`sschilly@lrrc.com
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`Harris A. Wolin
`GRAHAM CURTIN, PA
`hwolin@grahamcurtin.com
`
`
`4